USA Politics

[Vaenyr]

“Next order of business is, due to higher egg prices, the county omelet brunch will cost $15 instead of $10 this year. It’s inflation, don’t blame the hens.”

Side 1: “Let’s go Brandon, we know it’s the deep state raising them there egg prices to fund their perverted butt surgeries.”

Side 2: “We’re, umm vegan, but,, excuse me, excuse me, did I hear you say ‘hens’? How do you know they identify as hens? That sort of heteronormative fascist thinking invalidates the entire poultry non-binary community. The correct term is ‘egg layers’ you reprehensible person who should be thrown in a gulag.”

“Umm, so no omelet brunch this year? Jesus.”

Oh fuck off with this disingenuous bullshit

 

[Diesel 11]

You could argue

You could make

Okay, but what are you arguing?

Side 2: “We’re, umm vegan, but,, excuse me, excuse me, did I hear you say ‘hens’? How do you know they identify as hens? That sort of heteronormative fascist thinking invalidates the entire poultry non-binary community. The correct term is ‘egg layers’ you reprehensible person who should be thrown in a gulag.”

No one is saying this.

 

[Jer]

At no point does he show images of peaceful protestors behaving reasonably.

You could make a valid counterpoint that Maher has an obligation to acknowledge that many of those against Israel’s treatment of Palestine are simply human rights advocates.

He often peppers these sorts of caveats into his comments during the panel discussion, so they don’t wind up in the clickbaity clips, but they are there when people have the full context.

I think a lot of the people complaining about Maher are either seeing clips from Club Random, where he’s half in the bag and just shooting the shit, or are just watching short clips of his comments from elsewhere and filling in any perceived blanks from their own imaginations.

 

[Vaenyr]

Sorry, forgot you need attention, Veanyr.

Hey my little socially conscious friend. As much fun as it would be to debate every extreme strawman argument, denial, ad hominem attack, and glib reply that sounds like something a person would have read on Buzzfeed you post, I simply don’t have the motivation to do so.

I figured that out after giving you benefit of the doubt early on, and realized that since you’re not compensating me for educating you (see what I did there), it’s simply not worthwhile to engage.

Attention? You called me out by name

You are the one who brings up strawmen. I haven't done so. In fact, I keep telling you to bring up facts which you refuse to do.
You are the one who refuses to answer my questions, not me. So who's in denial?
You are the one who keeps calling me out by name, after saying that you'd stop responding to me. Who's the one engaging in ad hominems?
So, stop with the projection and the bad faith behavior and finally show some figurative balls.

Also, "educating" me? You've been making shit up and haven't posted anything remotely factual so there definitely was no "education".

Keep throwing your little tantrums, I'll keep calling out your cowardly behavior and your disingenuous bullshit.

 

[Diesel 11]

Sorry, forgot you need attention, Veanyr.

Hey my little socially conscious friend. As much fun as it would be to debate every extreme strawman argument, denial, ad hominem attack, and glib reply that sounds like something a person would have read on Buzzfeed you post, I simply don’t have the motivation to do so.

I figured that out after giving you benefit of the doubt early on, and realized that since you’re not compensating me for educating you (see what I did there), it’s simply not worthwhile to engage.

Dude, you literally name-dropped him in your post. Did you not think he was going to respond to your pettiness? Your posturing here is getting really grating. Sorry Vaenyr pissed in your cornflakes but I think it’s time you moved on with your life. Listening to Virtual XI would take less time and be a much more positive experience than snipping about one guy in the politics thread.

And @Vaenyr please for the love of god man, don’t take the bait from this troll.

 

[Diesel 11]

You are falling for right wing propaganda.

 

[Perun]

Right. The optics he calls out are where the protestors get to the point where they appear to be supporting Hamas, holding up “Infatada” signs and the like.

Except that he also claims the Democrats accept pro-Hamas optics because somebody showed a Palestinian flag saying "Free Palestine" at their convention, among other things.

At no point does he show images of peaceful protestors behaving reasonably.

He shows pictures of people simply protesting, waving Palestinian flags, some of which say "Free Palestine"; cf. eg. 4:17. Saying a Palestinian flag is a Hamas flag is like saying an American flag is a Republican flag.

You could argue that the extreme protesters simply don’t exist if you subscribe to the Veanyr school of anonymous online debate.

You could make a valid counterpoint that Maher has an obligation to acknowledge that many of those against Israel’s treatment of Palestine are simply human rights advocates.

1. I'm not arguing that there are no extremists among the protesters; I very much acknowledge that there are and that they are a problem. 2. What's this "Vaenyy school of anonymous online debate" shit? It's not like you're in any way acting more civil by bringing your ideas about someone else into this exchange.

As for the counterpoint, isn't that what I've been doing? I think you're reading what you think Vaenyr is saying to you into what I'm writing. The only caveat is that I'm not saying Maher has any obligation. He can do whatever he wants, it's his stupid show. I have the right to point out why I think what he says is stupid, though. And that's all I've been doing.

 

[MrKnickerbocker]

To borrow a bit of tone from @JudasMyGuide's post yesterday, I can't help but notice that the self-proclaimed conservatives, centrists or moderates on this thread suddenly stop replying whenever they are confronted with documentation about actual facts or asked to weigh in on specific details to the things over which they are debating.

Suddenly, "life becomes just way too busy" or they "don't have the time to devote to nitpicking every tiny detail" or "they just aren't interested in arguing on here".

Just an observation.

 

[Vaenyr]

Turning down the heat somewhat and returning to the actual point at hand:

If people are interested in policies, in the "boring" but important side of politics, then the only viable party in the US are the Dems. As shitty as they can be in some aspects, they at least have some kind of policies for most topics.

If people instead are interested in identity politics the GOP is the party for them, since they were the ones who went full on in their 2024 campaign. Turns out LGBTQ people would like to live their lives in peace, not have insane conspiracies about them shouted at all times by reactionaries. The only ones shoving these topics down anyone's throat are conservatives, not progressives, which can be easily verified by the campains of Trump and Harris.

 

[MrKnickerbocker]

What documentation with irrefutable facts was posted that was ignored or retreated from?

This was not all directed at you. It's mostly directed at the Trumpers who have all but abandoned this thread in the face of things that they have zero response to (because they aren't actually watching/reading them).

But this attitude:

I simply don’t have the motivation to do so.

&

it’s simply not worthwhile to engage.

Is my point. I fully agree that continuing to rage shout doesn't help anything, but neither does a lack of engagement.

 

[Jer]

I can't help but notice that the self-proclaimed conservatives, centrists or moderates on this thread suddenly stop replying whenever they are confronted with documentation about actual facts or asked to weigh in on specific details to the things over which they are debating.

…or those types of responses have already been provided, then summarily ignored, or dismissed as “not worthy of a response”, or “whataboutted” by people who aren’t interested in having an actual conversation so many times that further engagement becomes pointless.

Have you also “observed” which group around here leaps into name calling as soon as humanly possible when they encounter an opposing viewpoint…?

 

[MrKnickerbocker]

…or those types of responses have already been provided, then summarily ignored, or dismissed as “not worthy of a response”, or “whataboutted” by people who aren’t interested in having an actual conversation so many times that further engagement becomes pointless.

Have you also “observed” which group around here leaps into name calling as soon as humanly possible when they encounter an opposing viewpoint…?

The frustration level is certainly at an all time high. The name calling I have observed happens after the same point has been made or a request for sources and verification has been ignored over and over again. Not saying it's ok, but at a certain point, the willful ignorance certainly inspires a negative reaction.

I have yet to see the few Conservative folks who have been discussed in recent pages respond with anything other than the dismissal, ignoring or "whatabouttism" you mention.

 

[Azas]

I'd like to share a rhetorical observation on one of the current topics in global politics.

So... if we—those of us who aren't progressive or far-left—okay, let me speak only for myself. If I, someone who sees himself more or less in the political center, am supposedly a bigot and a despicable human being for saying (as I’ve said long ago) that immigration policies need to be much more controlled—well, let’s unpack that. I’m not against immigration per se. I’m not against immigrants as such. But policies around such sensitive matters must be handled with far more care and control than they have been.

So if I was supposedly so dead wrong and deranged on this issue—one of the hottest political topics in both Europe and the U.S.—why is it that now Germany and the UK are beginning to implement stricter immigration measures? Hm. To me, it looks like there was a fair amount of common sense in what I was saying, at least on this particular "hot potato."

And please, don’t try to paint me as a closet immigrant-hater or a bigot or whatever label is fashionable. The reality is that governments have a duty to listen—at least to some degree—to what large segments of the population are saying. Because if they completely ignore them, the result will be the rise of extremes, whether it's AfD, MAGA, or some other form.

Reality is such that we all have doors on our homes. And we lock them, whether day or night. Only when we know the person knocking a little better do we invite them in. That’s just common sense, not hatred.

This example reflects one of the key topics that came up during the U.S. elections. And frankly, if the Democrats were more pragmatic on this front, they’d be a lot more appealing to a broader range of voters.

Let me be clear again: I’m not against immigration. I completely understand that large countries like the U.S., the U.K., or Germany need an infusion of new people to thrive—economically, culturally, and otherwise. Even my own country needs it, as Europe is aging rapidly. But national borders do exist, and they should be respected, just as laws in responsible countries are meant to be upheld. It can’t be a free-for-all.

Also, if immigration is handled in a more measured and controlled way, extremist political parties will have far fewer cards to play.

Edit: Maybe, just maybe, when moderates say “hold your horses” on certain progressive issues, they’re also somewhat right—and not completely deranged?

 

[MrKnickerbocker]

I'd like to share a rhetorical observation on one of the current topics in global politics.

So... if we—those of us who aren't progressive or far-left—okay, let me speak only for myself. If I, someone who sees himself more or less in the political center, am supposedly a bigot and a despicable human being for saying (as I’ve said long ago) that immigration policies need to be much more controlled—well, let’s unpack that. I’m not against immigration per se. I’m not against immigrants as such. But policies around such sensitive matters must be handled with far more care and control than they have been.

So if I was supposedly so dead wrong and deranged on this issue—one of the hottest political topics in both Europe and the U.S.—why is it that now Germany and the UK are beginning to implement stricter immigration measures? Hm. To me, it looks like there was a fair amount of common sense in what I was saying, at least on this particular "hot potato."

And please, don’t try to paint me as a closet immigrant-hater or a bigot or whatever label is fashionable. The reality is that governments have a duty to listen—at least to some degree—to what large segments of the population are saying. Because if they completely ignore them, the result will be the rise of extremes, whether it's AfD, MAGA, or some other form.

Reality is such that we all have doors on our homes. And we lock them, whether day or night. Only when we know the person knocking a little better do we invite them in. That’s just common sense, not hatred.

This example reflects one of the key topics that came up during the U.S. elections. And frankly, if the Democrats were more pragmatic on this front, they’d be a lot more appealing to a broader range of voters.

Let me be clear again: I’m not against immigration. I completely understand that large countries like the U.S., the U.K., or Germany need an infusion of new people to thrive—economically, culturally, and otherwise. Even my own country needs it, as Europe is aging rapidly. But national borders do exist, and they should be respected, just as laws in responsible countries are meant to be upheld. It can’t be a free-for-all.

Also, if immigration is handled in a more measured and controlled way, extremist political parties will have far fewer cards to play.

Edit: Maybe, just maybe, when moderates say “hold your horses” on certain progressive issues, they’re also somewhat right—and not completely deranged?

I also agree that immigration should have rules and policies and legalities associated with it. And so do the majority of American Democrats currently in-government. Right-wing media has simply painted Democrats as wanting completely open borders everywhere!1

The flip side is: I also believe that human beings deserve respect and shouldn't be rounded up and deported without any sort of trial or documentation.

Surely, there is a compromise somewhere between open borders and rounding up children with cancer in the middle of the night?

 

[Azas]

The flip side is: I also believe that human beings deserve respect and shouldn't be rounded up and deported without any sort of trial or documentation.

Surely, there is a compromise somewhere between open borders and rounding up children with cancer in the middle of the night?

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[MrKnickerbocker]

This is 100% reasonable.

One might say “moderate.”

Prior to Trump, I would have considered myself incredibly moderate, as I:

- believe in freedom of speech and religion (and freedom from imposed religious doctrine written in law)
- believe in freedom from tyranny
- believe that persecution of anyone based on a one-line description of their existence is wrong
- believe that we should not repeal laws that previously uplifted and granted rights to women and minorities
- believe that the ultra-wealthy should not be in charge of the government
- believe that our leaders should be educated, intelligent, and capable of humility (or, like, literally even listening to other people)
- hate Nazis

Apparently, during Trump and the wave of lunacy that follows in his wake, I am now a "radical left-wing liberal."

 

[Vaenyr]

The burden of proof is on both sides debating an issue.

My experience here was, even after I provided plenty of links simply showing some democrats are advocating a more moderate position, there was denial that any Democrats questioned their progressive wing’s messaging.

That, to me isn’t reasonable, nor is it worthwhile to go gather more and more information to refute comments where the person debating me provides no sources of their own and reiteratively demands more “evidence” while ignoring that already provided. That, to me, is the “trolling.”

Read further back in the thread. Or don’t.

As far as not having time — for what? Arguing ad nauseam on some obscure sub-forum in an Iron Maiden message board?

No worries folks, this won't devolve into another argument, I'm just clarifying something: The bolded never happened. What happened was that after asking for data that supports an argument the only thing provided were opinion articles. Which, as I pointed out repeatedly, do not qualify as evidence or data. The specific point of contention was about any kind of voting data that supported the claim that the progressive messaging was harmful for the Dems. Why ask for that? Because we have direct evidence that moving rightwards resulted in a historic loss.

Adopting the right-wing framing without questioning, and falling victim to right wing propaganda is playing into the hands of Trump and the MAGA extremists.

 

[Perun]

What the hell?

 

[Vaenyr]

Good riddance I suppose? Not only doesn't it matter in the least what the opinions of the mods are, they have never penalized anyonze for different views. In fact, I had written a lengthy post a while ago about that exact type of mindset, which the people who raised this "the mods are biased and too left!" point never responded to:

This is a genuine question, because I've seen Judas and other members mention this before: What does it matter what political opinions the mods have?

There isn't a single instance, at least since I've joined the forum, that I've seen someone being censored for being conservative. The mods participate as regular members in these discussions and only ever wield their powers when things get out of control to tell us to rein it in a bit.

In the US politics threads we've had Trump supporters, and while they have definitely seen push back for some of their posts and opinions, that is kind of the point of a politics thread. There should be discussion. I haven't seen the mods use their powers or rank to treat a conservative member unfairly. In fact, I'm far left and some might argue that I'm closer to the views of the mods than a conservative is, but I'm pretty sure they've rolled their eyes more than once at some of my (political) posts and takes.

So, what exactly would change if any of the mods/admins were conservative or more moderate? Would there be any meaningful changes in the behavior and the discourse of such threads? Maybe I'd catch a ban for one of my more hostile replies, I guess lol.

In other words: People use this type of argument as a last resort because they can't stand their own arguments being scrutinized.

 

[JudasMyGuide]

What the hell?

Huh, so another non-progleft member has found the forum unbearable and disappeared for a while? Gee, what a strange coincidence. Us lying and evildoing conservatives are so thin-skinned and terrible, amirite? *nudges elbow* We just can't get into our thick heads that you lot just want "equal rights" and that you just "dislike literal Nazis."

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I really see a certain pattern here. Sheriff might have become a bit too sensitive and frustrated in the last few pages, even for me, but I've kinda been there, so I don't judge him too harshly.

So if I was supposedly so dead wrong and deranged on this issue—one of the hottest political topics in both Europe and the U.S.—why is it that now Germany and the UK are beginning to implement stricter immigration measures? Hm. To me, it looks like there was a fair amount of common sense in what I was saying, at least on this particular "hot potato."

To be honest, it took years of no-go zones, Italy literally swarming with people they can't ever accommodate, France being pretty much overrun in various aspects and a public stabbing in Germany every other month or so to actually see this change happening.

And even then some of the "too-woke-to-function" crowd cry foul and say they how racist and fascist this turn is and how those parties are merely dogwhistling and appeasing the fascists and so on.

This was my appeal even before the US election - don't leave legitimate concerns of your citizens aside only for those to be taken up by the far right. You'll pay dearly for it.

(Yes, among other things, I blame Democrats for Trump. I blame European progressives for the rise of far-right that we're seeing everywhere. Canada's last election literally only ended up the way it did because they have Trump right next door. But whatever, I digress)

I also agree that immigration should have rules and policies and legalities associated with it. And so do the majority of American Democrats currently in-government. Right-wing media has simply painted Democrats as wanting completely open borders everywhere!1

The flip side is: I also believe that human beings deserve respect and shouldn't be rounded up and deported without any sort of trial or documentation.

Surely, there is a compromise somewhere between open borders and rounding up children with cancer in the middle of the night?

Except the crossed stuff (see below), I agree with this 100% and I consider it to be the most moral opinion, a moderate opinion and, in fact, the Catholic opinion besides. Won't find any disagreement from me there.

However, while you can blame media or evil Republicans or people stupidity to a degree, I doubt that would be nearly enough for the majority to actually prefer the latter, bolded option if there wasn't a huge problem with immigration in the US already and frankly I have some serious doubt regarding that being merely the spin of right-wing media.

From a European point of view (and we don't follow any particular media, except for avoiding Fox News, I guess) - and I agree upon this even with my moderately prog-left European friends - it did appear that Dems were/are a bit reckless and almost suicidal towards open borders (maybe kinda as a knee-jerk reaction to Trump, but then again, Trump won twice) and that the not-nearly-enough controlled immigration is starting to take its toll in certain areas.
In fact that's exactly what we're seeing here in Europe regarding immigration, as Azas said, that is "oh not, it's no problem at all, don't be a racist" (although it's absolutely not about race - I wanted a black bloke from Guinea the most to be my Supreme Leader Pope), until the far-right steals your voters. In the US which is bigger and usually more... extreme in many aspects, the situation definitely can't be better.

Maybe that's a view from too afar, maybe that's perspective, I don't know.

But normal people don't wake up one day and say, "ah, what a day to do something evil, let's round up children with cancer in the middle of the night", just like normal people don't wake up one day and say "ah, Trump, what an agreeable and obviously honest fellow, I want this decent bloke to be the President... again."

If the Democrats really agree with this opinion, why don't they show it? Why didn't they implement (or improve) the rules and policies and legalities when they had the chance, to end up with a moderate compromise? Or at least, why didn't they want to appear that way?
When your opponent is someone as insane, exploitative and grotesque as Trump, the way to go is to appear moderate, mild and reasonable. Blame far right media all you want, but the Dems have definitely failed at that.

(having half of your campaign being about how the other party is evil is also a mistake - this doesn't work and I'm dreading my country's next election, because that seems to be the biggest strategy of the (kinda) "good guys" here. And they're gonna lose. Terribly so.).